Can we talk about colourblind casting...

[CurlewKate]

...without the thread descending into a woke/anti-woke stramash?

Obviously it's a great advance that black actors now have access to many more parts than they did- and obviously in most cases it makes absolutely no difference to the play, show, whatever. But I was watching Shardlake,and it struck me that it was impossible that the Abbot of a 16th century monastery in rural England would be black. And that casting black actors in positions of power and influence might well give viewers a completely unrealistic idea of the status of black people in British history, and actually gloss over their struggles. So stylised historical figures, as in Shakespeare where we all know there's an element of fantasy (I recently saw a colourblind Coriolanus that was brilliant),no issue at all, of course. But historical dramas that are trying to represent life in the past roughly as it was-maybe actually unhelpful?

Incidentally, I know that one of the main characters in the Shardlake books is black. But he has a detailed backstory, and the discrimination he faced is part of his life.

Yes, that’s the one. Wow, you played Blanche? That’s quite a role! I’m going to show my DD your post to prove to her I’m right and she’s wrong!

There have been black people in this country since Roman Times. This is a fantastic book on the history of Black people in Britain in case you fancy a well respected source (figured it might be an interesting read for some invested in this thread)

I read in an interview that this was the book that got the lovely David Olusoga on his historian flex.

www.plutobooks.com/9780745338309/staying-power/

I was going to say that.

Even within historical sources, the context of when they were written matters - this a contemporary source is more important than one written 200 years later even if supported by evidence. Because of the reflection of the time.

The same is true of sci fi. The majority of sci fi of the 1960s is very positive and very progressive and forward looking whereas a lot of the sci currently being made has huge amounts of theme revolving around the concept of the end of times and dystopia.

It's a reflection of the mood of times and the current politics.

This isn't a good or bad thing as such.

But if you are using historical drama as a means to increase equality you have to be very careful about whether you are creating narratives which destroy understanding of the reality of struggles due to inequality. You can inadvertently do more harm than good if you create an idea that the real historical story has been in someway exaggerated.

Imagine doing a story about Auschwitz but saying we can't make it so bad because that wouldn't be kind to the Germans and it might make them look bad. Or perhaps saying we need to add more representation of black people to the story because otherwise it's not inclusive. There would be people who took certain messages from that which would undermine actual understanding of history and not reflect reality. This is, of course, this problem taken to it's very extreme but it helps to highlight the problem.

If the cultural value is it's historical nature, then take that on board and take the responsibility of that seriously. Otherwise make it such a juxtaposition that it's obvious and clear to the audience that this is a modern take on the story which wishes to be inclusive and of its time.

There's room for inclusivity here, without reducing it to, 'well what if the black kids take from it that their role in society is only to be a slave'. In some ways that's patronising anyway, because they might NEED to understand as part of their modern understanding of where they've come from and how history has shaped the lives of their family that yes actually, that WOULD have been your life experience if born in a different era.

The desire to push inclusivity into everything in an unthinking way is what I take a beef with. It very much can have counter productive outcomes if done badly. There is room for inclusion here, but it has to be done in a careful and thoughtful manner. Not just willynilly.

Yes, I did! I was a bit nervous to audition, because I sort of thought like your daughter, but my friends persuaded me and I was picked. I don't want to brag, but I genuinely think that I was the best one for the role (it was only a school play, so hardly the West End) and I had a blast playing her.

There's a lot of stories we could be telling.

DD is 4 and we've been reading children's books about Ruby Bridges and Rosa Parks. She's been really engaged in them. We could make a kids film about Ruby Bridges.

The actress playing "Hermione" in the play "Harry Potter & the Cursed Child" was black.. it made no sense

It wasn't a great story anyway but someone thought it did
Apologies if this has already been said, I have one eye on the match

What I like about all the people fretting that casting Black and other non-white people in these portrayals is that they 'worry' it will give people 'the wrong idea about the role of Black people' historically'. But everytime the subject of racism rears its head its always 'that was sooo long ago', 'we need to move on', 'the past is the past', and my personal favourite 'the UK isn't racist'.

The issue people have isn't about historical accuracy but I do like the new angle.

My only problem with the kind of historical realism you seem to be advocating is that black actors then end up only portraying characters who struggle as a result of their race. That would be so dull (for them and us) and unfair.

This is 2025. We as viewers know that we aren't watching a documentary from a previous century. We know that some of the characters were likely not black, but those dramas are meant to reflect our time really, and in our time black people can be an Abbot or whatever - even though, shamefully, it is still a struggle. Colourblind casting is a breakthrough that allows us to take our historical dramas for what they are - fictional accounts of real events.

Bridgerton and Queen Charlotte, is played by a black actor because if you look into history Queen Charlotte of Mcklenburg-Strelitz is black, has black features although painted lighter in portraits there was also a time in the tv program where this was highlight and that the kings mother commented to paint her with lighter skin

Maybe part of the problem is the obsession with particular periods and places in history. I think that the point which @ZebedeeDougalFlorence makes is an excellent one; in a nation which watches/produces a huge amount of historical drama, opportunities for actors is a consideration. (Strangely, as discussed above, not so much on the stage as the screen.)

I think it should be reasonably representative, yes. For the same reason I think any show portraying eg Birmingham or South London should be reasonably representative. Scotland exists, it isn't a fantasy land. It has actual history and demographics.

It goes without saying that school productions should be age, sex and colour blind. Anything goes as long as the actors have fun and give it their best. My son played the drunk, violent Bill Sykes when he was 11. The following year Long John Silver was a girl and she was absolutely brilliant.

Why? Can you show where the book says she isn’t black?

I agree with the OP about Shakespeare plays except perhaps when specific figures are mentioned. I think the suggestion that it may lead to fewer plays and films about black people in history may be a valid one.

What a daft thing to say. It doesn't say in 'the book' that ANY of the characters 'aren't black!' 🙄

So why isn’t it suitable for a black actor to portray her?

@DojaPhat "The issue people have isn't about historical accuracy but I do like the new angle."

No. My issue isn't about historical accuracy. It's about a more accurate representation of what life was like for minorities in the past.

Who decided Hermione was white? Not JK Rowling. Just whoever cast the movie.

Hermione could easily have been black. That's the problem black actors have always had. If it doesn't specifically say that a person is black they are assumed to be white.

Is this a reverse? Are pretending to have one opinion whilst really having snother?

Because the comparison to fat people undermines the argument you claim to be making . Being fat does have a whole host of ill health consequences. People are perfectly justified in being concerned both for the impact on the individual and on society. The NHS is rightly concerned about how it can afford the cost of obesity due to the severe e TRA demand it places on health services. Social care will fave the same pressure with people living more of their life in ill health

She was mixed race

I think what’s quite problematic is TV commissioners who give themselves a big pat on the back for casting black/ diverse actors in parts (like George in Famous Five as a classic example in kids TV)- as if they’ve done something amazing for l diversity - whereas in fact they are still only telling the same old white stories that they are familiar and comfortable with, instead of actually pushing any boundaries with WHAT they are commissioning. They are not actually telling a story that includes black / diverse people, they are just telling the same old story but pretending that it does!

Can you expand on which nationalities and races were represented? And where?

England was emerging from a feudal system at the time Shardlake was set. Land ownership was still based on the feudal system. The nobility (power and position was inherited through primogeniture, marriages were between equivalent families, not much room for outsiders to turn up from overseas and buy into the system) still held almost all the power. Many bishops and abbots were second sons of noble families, it was often the alternative route to achieve, wealth, power and influence. About 90% of people in England in the 16th century were the rural poor, scraping a living.

What percentage of the overall population of England do you think were non white in the 16th century? 1%? The population was about 3.5 million, so possibly 35,000 non white people, if 90% of them were as poor as 90% of the white population that would lead to around 175 (women not included) potentially more influential non white men.

On the one hand if this group of people were genuinely powerful and influential you could argue we would know about them. On the other hand you could argue that 175 men in the emerging mercantile / middle class, possibly touching the edge of nobility is such a small number that it’s no surprise that most people view the history of England and expect to see films or tv productions as an almost exclusively white thing.

This isn’t exactly on topic but related. Many years ago at the Royal Court theatre, i watched a performance of a play, whose name I can no longer remember, in which the lead part was played by a charismatic actor who was visibly disabled and in a wheelchair. After a few minutes confusion, when I couldn’t work out if the wheelchair was part of the play, I became completely gripped by the performance and the wheelchair was an irrelevance. Although, thinking back, the actor did use it quite cleverly.

Having said that, if a drama has a historic setting and one or two actors are of a different colour to the rest of the cast, it’s useful to know if that’s part of the story or not. Like Othello, it might or might not have some bearing on what’s happening.

If you were watching a play about South African characters in the C19 and all the cast where black, except for the slave who was played by a white actor, it would be helpful to have a steer on what to take notice of and what to ignore.

Jesus is often portrayed as a white man and noone has an issue with that so 🤷

How do you know he wasn't white?